On Jul 21, 2012, at 2:13 PM, Davide Varvello wrote: > Right, I seconded urlEncoded and urlDecoded
go for it. we will deprecate or let encodeForHTTP for backward compat. My point is: let us steadily improve the situation. And if tomorrow something nicer exists then we just replace and throw away what we did :). Stef > Davide > > > Norbert Hartl wrote >> >> IMHO that would worsen the problem :) >> >> encodeForHTTP is not a good name. The encoding is defined for URLs and has >> nothing to do with HTTP. It is mostly called "url safe encoded" or just >> "url encoded". Doing it similar as base64 I would propose >> >> urlEncoded >> urlDecoded >> >> or >> >> urlSafeEncoded >> urlSafeDecoded >> >> my 2 cents, >> >> Norbert >> >> Am 19.07.2012 um 21:47 schrieb Stéphane Ducasse: >> >>> Let us fix it and propose a decodeFromHTTP method >>> >>> Stef >>> >>> On Jul 18, 2012, at 2:02 PM, Davide Varvello wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks Sven, >>>> I was looking for String>>decode..whatever... with no luck :-) >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> -- >>>> View this message in context: >>>> http://forum.world.st/The-opposite-of-encodeForHTTP-tp4640491p4640510.html >>>> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>>> >>> >>> >> > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/The-opposite-of-encodeForHTTP-tp4640491p4641004.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
